Ahmadinejad proves Mark Steyn's point; Gholam Hossein Elham; Barack Hussein Obama

On December 30, 2008, Mark Steyn wrote the following:

The electors have made a bet that we can return to that happy capering playground at the Summit of the Americas where all the great questions have been settled and indulgent governments can subsidize their own anarchists. If 9/11 ultimately revealed America’s self-imposed constraints, November 4th [2008] is already understood as a comprehensive repudiation even of that qualified resolve. Like I said: for America's enemies, that’s useful to know.

For "centrists" who are still struggling to understand that quote, I will give you the bottom line. By electing Obama, we voted to repudiate even the half-hearted wartime actions of the Bush administration. America's enemies, smarter than the average Obama voter, understand this point and will take advantage of our renewed weakness.

Today, as if to prove this point, Iran and Ahmadinejad renewed their verbal hostility:

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

"This request [Obama's request for talks] means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham [Iranian spokesman] was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

Obama is not offended by these attacks, as leftists view foreign enemies as allies against their real enemy.

Previous - Obama: Iran IS NOT a threat, Iran IS a threat.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

The electors have made a bet that we can return to that happy capering playground at the Summit of the Americas where all the great questions have been settled and indulgent governments can subsidize their own anarchists. If 9/11 ultimately revealed America’s self-imposed constraints, November 4th [2008] is already understood as a comprehensive repudiation even of that qualified resolve. Like I said: for America's enemies, that’s useful to know.

Mark Steyn 12-30-08

Stoning in Somolia; Sharia; 13 year old rape victim.

This kind of thing won't stop just because we may pretend that we are no longer at war:

A young woman recently stoned to death in Somalia first pleaded for her life, a witness has told the BBC.

"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.

Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.

Check BBC for more.
If we decide that we are no longer at war and can appease our enemies with "talks," the stonings will continue and sharia will continue to spread.

When the family tried to report the rape, the girl was accused of adultery and detained, Amnesty said.

- - - -

But a witness who spoke to the BBC's Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium.

"More than 1,000 people arrived there," he said. . . .

"After two hours, the Islamic administration in Kismayo brought the lady to the place and when she came out she said: 'What do you want from me?'"

"They said: 'We will do what Allah has instructed us'. She said: 'I'm not going, I'm not going. Don't kill me, don't kill me.'

"A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

But no-one tried to stop the Islamist officials, who were armed, the witness said. He said one boy was shot in the confusion.

According to Amnesty International, nurses were sent to check during the stoning whether the victim was still alive. They removed her from the ground and declared that she was, before she was replaced so the stoning could continue.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

The port of Kismayo was seized in August by a coalition of forces loyal to rebel leader Hassan Turki, and al-Shabab, the country's main radical Islamist insurgent organisation.

Mr Turki is on the US list of "financers of terrorism".

Will we still even bother to maintain this list after today? Or will the list, instead, be turned over to the DNC campaign finance committee?

Meanwhile, Islamic immigration into the U.S. will continue unabated. But back to our story:

It was the first reported execution by stoning in the southern port city since Islamist insurgents captured it.

The BBC had a reporter in the area, but he was shot dead in Kismayo in June.

An Obama administration - surrender; Neville Chamberlain; Peace in Our Time

Go here to find the speech Neville Chamberlain presented to Parliament upon his return from England after surrendering to Hitler at Munich. This speech will give us a preview of the method Obama will use to explain the surrender of Iraq to Iran or some other ally to some other enemy. He will focus on the need for international control of the process as opposed to the pros and cons of losing an ally:

To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.

Nowhere does Chamberlain defend the occupation of a portion of Checkoslvakia by Germany. He simply focuses throughout his speech on the best way to accomplish that goal without the risk of "extremists" provoking a fight. We will hear more of this kind of talk over the next few years. Obama's main goal will be to pacify the rest of us while surrendering our strategic positions abroad and placing anti-American countries in positions of strength.

Quote of the day - Rudy Giuliani

"When they [the Democrats] gave up on Iraq, they gave up on America."

Rudy Giuliani - 9-3-08

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

Osama is not Ho Chi Minh, and al-Qa'eda are not the Viet Cong. If you exit, they'll follow. And Americans will die - in foreign embassies, barracks, warships, as they did through the Nineties, and eventually on the streets of US cities, too.

Mark Steyn - 11-22-05

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter [Vietnam]

"Enragingly, liberals talk about Vietnam as if it proves something about the use of force generally rather than the Democrats own bungling incompetence in military affairs. Historical accounts of the Vietnam war are incomprehensible because liberals refuse to admit the failure of their own national security strategy. The only important lesson from the Vietnam War is this: Democrats lose wars." -- Ann Coulter, P. 125

Quote of the day - George W. Bush [appeasement]

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

George W. Bush - May 2008

Al Qaeda and Obama

Holger notes that March 12, 2008 may be remembered as "the day that Al Qaeda in Iraq may well have gotten Barack Obama elected to President of the U.S.A."

Regardless of his middle name or his ability to stop us from saying "Hussein," the fact remains that Obama is Al Qaeda's candidate.

Read it all.

What the MSM/DNC did not tell us about the NIU killer and the hollow book guy; Benjamin Baines; Steven Kazmierczak; Rasmieyh Abdelnabi

The man who hid a box cutter in a hollowed out book at the Tampa Airport also had some other items in his backpack:

Officers found books in the backpack titled "Muhammad in the Bible," "The Prophet's Prayer" and "The Noble Qur'an." He also had a copy of the Quran and the Bible.

H/T Debbie Schlussel

The MSM/DNC did not dwell on the RoP connection.

A dry run?










------------------------------------------------------

In the case of the NIU killer, the first thing I thought of when I heard the initial report of the shooting was the Religion of Peace. But then I heard that he was a liberal sociology major and I dropped the RoP angle. But now Debbie Schlussel reports on the RoP connection:

Unlike most of us, Steve started his research from day one, reading every book he could find on Hamas. He'd give me a status report when we saw each other in class. Steve said that his perception of Hamas changed with all the research he did.

quoting Rasmieyh Abdelnabi in the Chicago Sun-Times

Rasmieyh Abdelnabi






We did not hear about Kazmierczak's affinity for Arabic and Hamas because the MSM/DNC is too busy blaming guns and video games. We will never win the war on terror if we cannot identify our enemy.

Quote of the day - General Sanchez

“It seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the ‘collateral damage’ you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.”

General Sanchez [commenting on MSM/DNC coverage of the war in Iraq.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn - multiculturalism

Why can't we do that [develop a consistent strategy for the war on terror similar to the U.S. cold war strategy] today?

Well, one reason is we're not really comfortable with ideology, either ours or anybody else's. Insofar as we have an ideology it's a belief in the virtues of "multiculturalism," "tolerance," "celebrate diversity" – a bumper-sticker ideology that is, in effect, an anti-ideology which explicitly rejects the very idea of drawing distinctions between your beliefs and anybody else's.

Mark Steyn - 10-12-07

multiculturalism

U.S. hospitality to Ahmadinejad demoralizes Iranian opposition

All of the arguments about whether to allow Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University last month boil down to one factor - internal opposition within Iran. Ahmadinejad faces at least some opposition within his own country, as today's Breitbart article indicates:

An estimated 100 students staged a rare demonstration Monday against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling him a "dictator" and scuffling with hardline students at Tehran University.
Ahmadinejad, who was giving a speech to a select group at the university to mark the beginning of the academic year, ignored the chants of "death to the dictator" and continued with his speech on the merits of science and the pitfalls of Western-style democracy, witnesses said.

The protesters scuffled with hardline students who were chanting "thank you president" while police looked on from outside the university gates. The protesters dispersed after the car carrying Ahmadinejad left the campus.

That opposition has now been shown film of Ahmadinejad being welcomed in the United States and at Columbia University. Iran's internal opposition knows only what the government wants them to know. The internal opposition now has the impression that they will receive no help from the U.S., that Ahmadinejad has bought respectability around the world and that they (the opposition) are isolated and without allies. No matter how much the crowd laughed at Ahmadinejad, his very presence in the U.S. among elite professionals and officials sent the worst possible message to his opponents.

Today's news provides all of the justification we need to keep Ahmadinejad out of this country and away from our crowds and institutions. We learned no new information from Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia. Ahmadinejad moderated none of his views upon listening to our students and academic officials.

There have been other protestors, such as rioters protesting gas prices or shortages. All such opposition will be demoralized by the American hospitality shown to Ahmadinejad.

Iranian gas riots - June 2007 - AP











Previous - B. Hussein Obama wants to meet with foreign dictators

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

According to the [New York] Times, many of the bereaved are angry and determined that their loved one's death should have meaning. Yet the meaning they're after surely strikes our enemies not just as extremely odd but as one more reason why they'll win. You launch an act of war, and the victims respond with a lawsuit against their own countrymen.

Mark Steyn 9-9-07

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

At least in Indochina, those who got it so horribly wrong – the Kerrys and Fondas and all the rest – could claim they had no idea of what would follow.

To do it all over again in the full knowledge of what followed would turn an aberration into a pattern of behavior. And as the Sirik Mataks of Baghdad face the choice between staying and dying or exile and embittered evenings in the new Iraqi émigré restaurants of London and Los Angeles, who will be America's allies in the years ahead?

Marl Steyn - August 25, 2007

Quote of the day - Daily Herald (Illinois)

"The Democrats, however, mostly ducked the hypothetical question of what they'd do as president if they pulled the U.S. out of Iraq and al-Qaida took over. . . "

Daily Herald - reporting on Democrat "debate" at Soldier Field in Chicago - 8-8-07

The latest leftist meme - Al Qaeda is not Al Qaeda; Abd Al Hadi; Al Zarqawi

The MSM/DNC has found a new meme.

President Bush has finally begun making clear arguments as to why we must continue the fight in Iraq against Al Qaeda. It is not merely so that we can "support the troops" or build democracy in Iraq or prevent a bloodbath or build stability in the middle east. The reason we must fight in Iraq is that we are fighting Al Qaeda:

"The facts are that Al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they’re fighting us in Iraq and across the world and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat."

NY Times quoting George Bush

Until President Bush began making that argument, the MSM/DNC was able to distract the American public with such irrelevancies as:

• The Plame affair;
• our inability to find many of Saddam's weapons;
• Cindy Sheehan;
• Halliburton;
• John Murtha's war record;
• the fact that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were two different people;
• Abu Graib;
• misrepresentations regarding Guantanamo;
• the election of 2000;
• Hurricane Katrina;
• The 9-11 Commission

[While some of these items have their own relevance, none of them justify retreat from Al Qaeda. For example, Katrina justifies a retreat from the swamp that is New Orleans, not a retreat from Al Qaeda or from Iraq.]

All of these stories attained "meme" status and helped the MSM/DNC make us forget that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, destroyed lower manhattan and is being dismembered by U.S. forces around the world, including in Iraq. A steady diet of Plame/Sheehan/torture/Katrina/Halliburton/"selected not elected" stories for the past six years has allowed this country to forget that it is at war and who the enemy is.

President Bush has done the right thing by refocusing the issue on Al Qaeda. American forces have killed Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and delayed Al Qaeda plans for worldwide jihad. We have known since 9-11 that we would have to destroy the Al Qaeda worldwide network. Such destruction will be expensive, bloody and time consuming. We have always known this. The only real question is what is the best way to accomplish this goal. Questions about who outed the non-spy Plame or the menu at Guantanamo or how many more Florida recounts we need to make Al Gore President, etc. distract from the war and accomplish nothing else.

By refocusing on Al Qaeda, President Bush has forced MSM/DNC to do the same. The MSM/DNC has responded with a new meme. They have desparately tried to differentiate Al Qaeda from "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

A recent Today show episode featured interviews with U.S. politicians that denigrated the Iraqi government, while the label beneath the visual image asked "Will Al Qaeda move into Iraq?" The implication being that Al Qaeda is not already there. The New York Times article that quotes President Bush is entitled "President Links Qaeda of Iraq to Qaeda of 9/11." The Times seek to prove, by mere implication, that these are somehow different groups that the President is trying to "link". The MSM/DNC will eventually employ the old leftist cold war tactic of refusing to acknowledge one's membership in an organization unless a membership card can be produced. Al Qaeda members are not likely to carry cards or other official proof of membership.

[The MSM/DNC spent a tremendous effort downplaying the D.C. snipers in 2002 once it became obvious that they were Islamists with sympathies for Al Qaeda instead of white rednecks. The MSM/DNC further made tremendous efforts to ignore the Islamic implications of the phrase "Ismail Ax" on the Virginia Tech shooter's body, despite providing painful details of every other aspect of the shooting. But denying that Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda is a new low for the MSM/DNC.]

While the MSM/DNC has argued that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we removed Saddam, such argument is false. In reviewing my tapes of the invasion from 2003, I noted that American forces destroyed an Al Qaeda base in Iraq on or about March 29th, 2003 (during the invasion). I have no further details because the NBC scrolling marquee was very vague. On April 1, 2003, the ABC scrolling marquee noted that a terrorist base was captured with "Al Qaeda manuals" and chemical weapons manuals. I do not know if those stories referred to the same bases. The MSM/DNC felt it was more important to cover other aspects of the war, such as Jessica Lynch or anti-war protests in the U.S. [To the MSM/DNC's credit, it did provide a great deal of coverage of major battlefield movements.]

Even if Al Qaeda did not occupy Iraq until after we removed Saddam, so what? Where would you rather fight Al Qaeda, in the mountains of Pakistan or in the flat lands of Iraq? The terrain of Afghanistan contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. By contrast, we have drawn Al Qaeda into the open by fighting them in Iraq. As long as we kill their members and leaders in Iraq, those members can not be used by Islam in the global war. If the U.S. has drawn Al Qaeda into Iraq, then President Bush is to be commended for that reason alone.

Zarqawi - Al Qaeda leader killed in Iraq.










My biggest concern in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 was the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. The Afghan mountains dwarf those mountains even in the Western U.S. A Soviet style Afghanistan war, with no other fronts, was not an option. But an air war to liberate Afghanistan followed by a lengthy occupation of Iraq, in which Al Qaeda loses leader after leader while Al Qaeda soldiers die and the Iraqi army gains strength and experience is a far different matter. Four years after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet losses amounted to five times the current level of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Fighting Al Qaeda in Baghdad is clearly a better option than fighting Al Qaeda in the caves of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The only other option is to refrain from fighting Al Qaeda at all. That option would allow 9-11 to go unpunished. That option would invite more 9-11's. That clearly is the option we face if we withdraw from Iraq, either in September or at any time in the next few years. Should an Iraqi withdrawal take place, we would soon forget that 9-11 ever happened while we concentrated on socializing medicine and turning the U.S. into another version of the European countries that face rapid decline.

While this fate would not appeal to most Americans, it is a virtual utopia for the MSM/DNC. MSM/DNC cannot achieve its utopia unless it forces American capitulation in the war. Capitulation means, among other things, pullout from Iraq now before we kill more Al Qaeda. MSM/DNC cannot force a pullout unless it creates the impression that Al Qaeda is somehow different from "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Abd Al Hadi - Al Qaeda leader behind the 7-7-05 London bombings killed in Iraq








To counter this meme, we must remember the following:

1) Al Qaeda attacked America and destroyed lower Manhattan on 9-11;
2) We fight Al Qaeda now in Iraq.

Now that America is on the verge of hearing the story expressed that simply, MSM/DNC is forced to separate #1 and #2. MSM/DNC has tried to separate those two items with irrelevant nonsense for the past four years, but now that President Bush is explicitly linking them together, MSM/DNC is forced to meet Bush' arguments with explicit denials instead of white noise. MSM/DNC always has a problem when it is forced to be explicit.

We should repeat points ## 1 and 2 at every opportunity.

Visit page added July 31, 2007

B. Hussein Obama wants to meet with North Korea, Iran, Hugo Chavez, etc.; Salvador de Madariaga

B. Hussein Obama's "debate" comment that he would be willing to conduct direct one-on-one talks with various rogue states has created a firestorm of criticism and created an opportunity for Hillary! to highlight her own "experience." She proved that even a stopped clock is right twice a day when she said “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes.”

What that answer hinted at was the massive propaganda benefits for dictators that result from meetings with American leaders. Opposition exists within Iran, Syria, Venezuela and even North Korea. The dictators of those countries seek to demonstrate to the opposition that their cause is hopeless. Should an American president make a personal appearance with Ahmedinejad or Kim Jong-Il (even a silly, ineffective president such as B. Hussein Obama or Hillary!), such appearance would signal to the internal opposition that the United States will not help them and that resistance is hopeless. Kim Jong-Il, Chavez and Ahmedinejad need the American leadership to give them legitimacy internally. We should not play into their hands.

This is especially true where we know that those dictators are committed to world revolution in any case.

Salvador de Madariaga

As I do in many cases, I find it useful to cite an old book. In 1960, Salvador de Madariaga wrote "The Blowing Up of the Parthenon." In this book, which focused on the cold war, the author warned of the dangers of American-Soviet summit meetings, as they tended to demoralize the internal opposition within Russia.

1960

[It is ironic that a book dedicated to helping the West fight the cold war would bear a title related to the destruction of the Parthenon due to Islamic storage of munitions.] If I thought that a little history would make a difference to the Democrats, I would recommend that they read Madariaga's book. At least it might help the rest of us keep the issues straight as the Democrats give the appearance of fighting with each other.



Barry Goldwater echoed these thoughts when he wrote that "the only summit meeting that can succeed is one that does not take place." Why Not Victory? (1962), p. 65. Goldwater wrote that the communists do not attend a summit unless they believe they hold the upper hand or can use the meeting for propaganda purposes:

They come to the conference table with two things in mind - possible real or propaganda advantage to them. And when we come to that table seriously seeking agreements in areas of contention, we automatically conceed them the advantage because they don't care about agreeemnts.

[Leftists stopped reading this post the moment they saw the word "Victory."]

It took decades to win the cold war. This victory was won despite Democrat and leftist obstruction. Today, it is apparent that most of the left has forgotten the lessons of the cold war, while some on the left will do no more than hint at those lessons solely to gain temporary political advantage.

Quote of the day - Hugh Hewitt

I think most Republican senators up for re-election in 2008 who are seen by GOP voters to side with Harry Reid on the war will be swept away by Democratic challengers powered by fierce grassroots organizations even as they are deserted by Republican activists for whom resolve in the war is a non-negotiable priority. These races won’t even be close. The divide between the parties on the war is deep, and the base of the GOP simply will not turn out for, much less work for, round-heeled Republicans.

Hugh Hewitt - July 12, 2007.

Bob Casey votes to deny protection to anti-terror whistleblowers; I am John Doe

The Senate has voted to kill a measure designed to protect those that report suspicious activity aboard public transportation and elsewhere. The measure was proposed after 6 muslims filed suit following their own suspicious activity in Minnesota (described by Doug Ross):

According to police reports, the imams were asked to deplane a US Airways flight in November after reportedly requesting seat-belt extenders; invoking the words "Bin Laden", "Saddam Hussein", and "terrorism"; shouting "prayers"; and generally acting in a disturbing and suspicious manner. Three of the six had one-way tickets and between all six, only one checked a bag. Once seated, they spread out in the plane in a pattern similar to the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in the front, two in the middle, and two in the back.
The imams, backed by CAIR, subsequently sued US Airways, passengers, and crew who had reported their activity. The lawsuit against the "John Does" was apparently intended to "discourage passengers from reporting suspicious activity in the future."

Wizbang publishes the roll call and following comments:

What is going on inside the Democratic party that its members are so united against protecting the American people from another terrorist attack? And as I noted in an earlier post, they are completely committed to this even after an intelligence report said that al Qaeda is working harder than ever to get their operatives into this country to commit terrorist acts.

If you check the roll call, you will see that those Senators with 2008 aspirations either voted for the measure or abstained. That includes Senator Clinton. Even Senators Schumer and Specter voted for this measure. Many red state Democrats voted for this measure. But Bob Casey opposed it.

What am I voting on, again?







When this bill was first proposed, I noted that if we let CAIR silence those who would speak out, we are endangering innocent people in buildings. The people who leaped to their death from the WTC had no idea that Mohammed Atta and his gang of Muslims had boarded a plane unopposed an hour or so earlier.

Silence has consequences.





Bob Casey may be feeling special because Moveon.org bought him a Senate seat, but the rest of us have to make sure that he is aware of the consequences of his actions.